On 09/18/2018 02:02 PM, Hari Gowtham wrote:
> I see that the procedure mentioned in the coding standard document is buggy.
>> git show --pretty="format:" --name-only | grep -v "contrib/" | egrep
> "*\.[ch]$" | xargs clang-format -i
>> The above command edited the whole file. which is not supposed to happen.
It works fine on fedora 28 (clang version 6.0.1). I had the same problem
you faced on fedora 26 though, presumably because of the older clang
version.
-Ravi
>> +1 for the readability of the code having been affected.
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 10:45 AM Amar Tumballi <atumball at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 10:00 AM, Ravishankar N <ravishankar at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 09/13/2018 03:34 PM, Niels de Vos wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 02:25:22PM +0530, Ravishankar N wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>> What rules does clang impose on function/argument wrapping and alignment? I
>>>>> somehow found the new code wrapping to be random and highly unreadable. An
>>>>> example of 'before and after' the clang format patches went in:
>>>>>https://paste.fedoraproject.org/paste/dC~aRCzYgliqucGYIzxPrQ Wondering if
>>>>> this is just me or is it some problem of spurious clang fixes.
>>>> I agree that this example looks pretty ugly. Looking at random changes
>>>> to the code where I am most active does not show this awkward
>>>> formatting.
>>>>>> So one of my recent patches is failing smoke and clang-format is insisting [https://build.gluster.org/job/clang-format/22/console] on wrapping function arguments in an unsightly manner. Should I resend my patch with this new style of wrapping ?
>>>>> I would say yes! We will get better, by changing options of clang-format once we get better options there. But for now, just following the option suggested by clang-format job is good IMO.
>>>> -Amar
>>>>> Regards,
>>> Ravi
>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, I was expecting to see enforcing of the
>>>> single-line-if-statements like this (and while/for/.. loops):
>>>>>>>> if (need_to_do_it) {
>>>> do_it();
>>>> }
>>>>>>>> instead of
>>>>>>>> if (need_to_do_it)
>>>> do_it();
>>>>>>>> At least the conversion did not take care of this. But, maybe I'm wrong
>>>> as I can not find the discussion in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1564149>>>> about this. Does someone remember what was decided in the end?
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Niels
>>>>>>>>> --
>> Amar Tumballi (amarts)
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gluster-devel mailing list
>>Gluster-devel at gluster.org>>https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel>>